Shanghai Disneyland will close in effort to contain coronavirus

Some good people, but way too many sycophants that enable his egotistic behavior.

Apparently Wuhan isn't too concerned anymore.

Wuhan Holds Huge Concert Pool Party After Three Months Of No Reported Coronavirus Cases

However, this could also be like the people who were packing the Florida beaches, when the beaches weren't actually packed.

The beaches in certain jurisdictions around Miami were absolutely filled with people, and that's another apples to robots comparison when there was an active, observable outbreak. Everything you have to say on the topic is from a place of skepticism that any of this is real, and that's not helpful.

I never for one moment thought it isn't real. I am fairly confident I contracted it earlier this year. I am absolutely skeptical of anything claimed by our government, and also of most of the media. I certainly believe there is too much financial risk for them to not play ball to some degree.

"The media" is not a secret cabal of conspirators intent on world domination. Just saying.

No, but they are very reliant on ratings. Never forget that girl paying attention to you at Hooters does work on tips.

And here I thought she really like me.

I thought she liked me this whole time, she even drew a heart on my receipt.

Anyway, there are fundamental issues with the way things are done here, and until they are addressed we will struggle to progress.

We haven't made significant progress in carbon free vehicles because of behind the scenes deals with big oil. It really wasn't until Elon came along and largely funded his dreams himself and through family and VC's who believed in his ideas that we made significant leaps. Our government, large companies, etc., blocked progress because it meant reduced profits and income.

Why every election do people funnel money into candidates and they get to parade around and put out ads and run conventions etc. Campaigning should be the candidate, nothing more, take a tour around the country, do your debates, call it a day. No one should be able to fund the presidential candidates because now they owe people and have to make concessions.

Why are pharma companies able to advertise directly to the public? We shouldn't be asking our doctors about anything, we should be describing our symptoms and letting them present us with options. Doctors get kickbacks for giving out certain meds. This shouldn't be a thing.

There is corruption all over the place because of back room deals and someone standing to make some money. This should be the problem to be addressed first.

Government should be transparent, and afraid of the population, they aren't. We need more Edward Snowden's and more leaks from within, there are many things going on that would shock all of us if it were made public. We fund the government, why do we work for them?

So, I actually agree with just about everything you said.

But regarding trusting institutions, if we don't trust "the government" (even though it's not some monolithic uniform organization or run by some secret cabal) and if we don't trust "the media" (even though it's not some monolithic uniform organization or run by some secret cabal) and if we don't trust "experts" (same caveat) or "science" (yup, caveat again) then how do we get information?

TheMillenniumRider said:

I am absolutely skeptical of anything claimed by our government, and also of most of the media.

Dude, shhhh--

Jeff said:"The media" is not a secret cabal of conspirators intent on world domination. Just saying.

Ah, crap, too late.

Adding Jeff's defense of "the media" to 'RonaBingo.

I never had any real issues with experts and science, the problem with experts and science are just that it takes time to root out the actual truth and answers. It's just the downfall of the scientific method.

However, there have been scientific reports done which support certain big businesses, sugar and the various fossil fuels come to mind here. Those are normally easy to weed out. The only way to get accurate information anymore is to make a bunch of comparisons between the government, media, scientific reports, and experts. Look for the common ground and that is likely truthful, the rest of it is speculation/someone else's opinion/total BS/whatever. It's sad but the average person needs to do a full on investigation to weed out all the garbage tossed in front of us.

Democracy is a great thing, but one area democracy sucks is in times of crisis and when quick action is needed. In those instances a dictatorship/monarchy or other forms of communistic government are far more effective. They have a nicely packaged unified message and it is far easier to rally a country into action. Democracy reminds me quite a bit of the scientific method. It produces a better end result (usually) but the process is laborious and tends to drag out.

However, as I mentioned before, there are many experts who disagree with one another and that doesn't exactly inspire confidence in the average individual. Couple those experts with the media selecting the expert they want and then adding their own spin and it makes things worse. Add the government and the conflicting messages they are sending and it make it even muddier. Tack on some fake news, social media blowups, race riots, etc. and it's easier to just throw your hands up then attempt to draw logical conclusions from the mess. After all if covid doesn't kill us, there is always global warming, the next hurricane, or whatever else is on the hotsheets for today.

wahoo skipper said:

If you listened to the scientists, and not the politicians, you would have heard that the time frame they were discussing was discouraging but realistic. One of the earliest projections on the availability of a vaccine was winter of 2020 into spring of 2021. That was the moment I started talking to my staff about working virtually through the end of the year, at best.

I told my department the same thing. Maybe our board of education will finally agree with me tonight. We start school in 6 days. It's not like we need time to plan. :)

ApolloAndy said:

So, I actually agree with just about everything you said.

But regarding trusting institutions, if we don't trust "the government" (even though it's not some monolithic uniform organization or run by some secret cabal) and if we don't trust "the media" (even though it's not some monolithic uniform organization or run by some secret cabal) and if we don't trust "experts" (same caveat) or "science" (yup, caveat again) then how do we get information?

The same way you should trust anyone beyond your "inner circle." Trust, but verify.

TheMillenniumRider said:

I never had any real issues with experts and science, the problem with experts and science are just that it takes time to root out the actual truth and answers. It's just the downfall of the scientific method.

I'm curious as to why you see this as a downfall. For me, this is the beauty of science. It isn't a way of thinking, it isn't a political perspective, it isn't a belief system, it's a verb. It's something you either do or don't do. It's something you either don't understand, or you take the time to learn (or...unfortunately not).

The fact that it takes time, patience, persistence, and replication is what separates Carl Sagan from the My Pillow guy.

If that's a "downfall," you fundamentally misunderstand what the scientific method is.

As someone who works in higher ed, it has been interesting to watch both Carolina and Notre Dame switch to remote-only classes within about a week of starting---or more saliently, after about two weeks from students returning to campus. Michigan State starts a week or two from now, has transitioned to online only and yesterday told their incoming residence hall students to stay home if they can rather than move into the dorms.

Michigan (my employer) is still planning a hybrid term, with most courses remote but some in person. I guess we'll see what happens, but students are starting to move back now so if it is going to blow up, we'll know by September 7th or 14th or so.

WHEN it blows up, you'll know by September 7th or 14th.

I stand (or, rather, sit) corrected! :-)

Notre Dame went full in on in person classes and residential college experience. No real reduction in density in the dorms. From what I have heard from friends with kids there, campus was busy and active. Seems like they relied on testing all of their kids before they came back to campus (positivity rate was about 0.3%). Did very little testing after kids arrived (numbers would indicate it was just kids with symptoms). Not sure how they thought that would work out. Number of tests this week have increased. Though the football team does get surveillance testing. And in person classes canceled for at least 2 weeks; football team activities for one day. :)

Not all colleges are taking the same approach. Some have gone 100% online. With no one invited back to campus. Some have hybrid systems in place. Some are only inviting back certain class ranks to campus. Reducing density in dorms. Some colleges testing all kids weekly. Others sample testing (kids with symptoms and additional tests for surveillance).

I expect that some colleges will do better than others. No doubt tho the ones who don't will get more coverage.

We (Mount Union) start on Monday. Small private campus; roughly 2500 students, and not a "party school" by any stretch of the imagination.

Hybrid model, with all of our classes being taught 50/50 online and live, with every classroom being reduced to half capacity and everyone in masks inside and outside at all times.

We're also prepared (this time) to go 100% online at a moment's notice.

The students (and some us faculty) have a pool of how long we will last.

My personal bet is that we will do better than some of those getting the headlines due to our size, but time will tell.